Synthego v. Agilent: CRISPR RNA Patents Invalidated After 1,652-Day Battle
Synthego Corporation filed a declaratory judgment action against Agilent Technologies disputing infringement of two CRISPR RNA synthesis patents (US10337001 and US10900034). After PTAB invalidated all claims in both patents via IPR, the Federal Circuit affirmed, the Supreme Court denied cert, and the district court dismissed the consolidated action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — ending over four and a half years of litigation.
CRISPR Patent War Ends in Total Invalidity After Four-Level Battle
Synthego Corporation, a CRISPR genome-editing company, filed this declaratory judgment action on October 5, 2021 in the Northern District of California, seeking a ruling of non-infringement against Agilent Technologies. The patents-in-suit, US10337001B2 and US10900034B2, are owned by Agilent and cover CRISPR RNA synthesis technology. Agilent counterclaimed for infringement, targeting Synthego's CRISPRevolution synthetic sgRNA kits, Advanced RNA and CRISPR GMP sgRNA manufacturing services, and ECLIPSE genome editing services. A related Delaware action asserting the same patents was transferred and consolidated into this proceeding.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed'; the docket order states dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties. The mootness arose because PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in IPR2022-00402 and IPR2022-00403 finding all claims of both patents unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed those decisions in Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Synthego Corp., 139 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2025), and the Supreme Court denied Agilent's petition for certiorari on March 30, 2026. Agilent takes nothing against Synthego in either consolidated action. The specific terms beyond what is stated in the joint stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
The 1,652-day duration reflects the complexity of running parallel PTAB IPR proceedings, a Federal Circuit appeal, and a Supreme Court cert petition alongside the district court litigation. The dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — rather than on the merits of infringement — suggests the district court deferred to the IPR/appellate track rather than resolving the underlying infringement dispute independently. What remains unknown from the public record is any financial resolution or licensing arrangement between the parties.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 1652 days
Duration — 1,652 days from filing to dismissal, spanning district court, PTAB IPR, Federal Circuit appeal, and Supreme Court cert petition
US10337001B2 & US10900034B2 — CRISPR RNA synthesis patents
Both US10337001B2 and US10900034B2 have been found unpatentable in their entirety and those findings are final. Companies manufacturing synthetic sgRNA products, CRISPR GMP RNA, or performing genome editing services no longer face a risk from these specific patents. However, Agilent's broader oligonucleotide and CRISPR-related portfolio may contain related patents not addressed in this action. R&D and product teams should confirm their FTO analysis covers the full citation landscape around these now-cancelled patents.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation confirms all claims of both patents were found unpatentable by PTAB and that finding was affirmed by the Federal Circuit and denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, rendering the district court dispute moot. The dismissal is for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — not a merits adjudication of infringement or non-infringement. Agilent is recorded as taking nothing, and cost recovery remains available to any party that establishes prevailing-party status under FRCP 54(d)(1).
Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: what the outcome means for both parties
Mootness-driven dismissal after total patent invalidation
When PTAB cancels all claims of a patent and the Federal Circuit affirms, there is no longer a live patent for either party to enforce or defend against. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the dispute became moot — there was nothing left to adjudicate. This mechanism means neither infringement nor non-infringement was adjudicated on the merits at the district court level.
Mootness — no merits rulingSynthego achieves functional victory: both patents eliminated
With all 63 asserted claims across both patents found unpatentable and that outcome upheld through cert denial, Synthego's CRISPRevolution sgRNA products and ECLIPSE genome editing services face no further threat from US10337001 or US10900034. The docket confirms Agilent 'takes nothing' against Synthego. No damages, injunction, or royalty obligation was imposed on Synthego under either patent.
Synthego: no liability, patents goneAgilent loses both patents through all available appeal channels
Agilent pursued the maximum available appellate path — PTAB, Federal Circuit, and Supreme Court — and was unsuccessful at every stage. With cert denied, the PTAB invalidity findings are final and non-appealable. Agilent cannot re-assert US10337001 or US10900034 against Synthego or any other party. The commercial and competitive value of these two CRISPR RNA synthesis patents has been extinguished.
Agilent: both patents unenforceableCRISPR RNA synthesis space loses two key Agilent patents
The invalidation of US10337001 and US10900034 removes a potential enforcement barrier in the synthetic guide RNA manufacturing market. Companies operating in synthetic sgRNA production, CRISPR GMP manufacturing, and genome editing services should note that these specific claim scopes are now unenforceable. However, Agilent's broader CRISPR-related portfolio may still present separate freedom-to-operate considerations not resolved by this case.
sgRNA synthesis market: FTO expandedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Synthego Corporation | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Agilent Technologies, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek C. Walter | Attorney | Counsel for Synthego CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward Robert Reines | Attorney | Counsel for Synthego CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ernest Dart-Ho Fok | Attorney | Counsel for Synthego CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shawn Chi | Attorney | Counsel for Synthego CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing Synthego CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing Synthego CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Weil, Gotshal Manges, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Synthego CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron Richard Hand | Attorney | Counsel for Agilent Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brenda Helen Entzminger | Attorney | Counsel for Agilent Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Denise M. DeMory | Attorney | Counsel for Agilent Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Nicole Robinson | Attorney | Counsel for Agilent Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Cheng-hong Lin | Attorney | Counsel for Agilent Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bunsow DeMory LLP | Law Firm | Representing Agilent Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the CRISPR RNA synthesis IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence for sgRNA manufacturers, genome editing platforms, and CRISPR GMP suppliers monitoring Agilent and Synthego's technology footprint.
Agilent's remaining CRISPR and oligonucleotide synthesis portfolio
The cancellation of US10337001 and US10900034 removes two nodes from Agilent's CRISPR RNA IP position, but Agilent holds a broader oligonucleotide chemistry and synthesis portfolio. Monitoring Agilent's continuation filings citing the same priority chains, as well as IDS-cited art in the cancelled patents, can reveal active claims with overlapping technical scope that may remain enforceable against sgRNA manufacturers.
Agilent CRISPR portfolio watchFiling trends in synthetic guide RNA and CRISPR GMP manufacturing
Synthetic sgRNA manufacturing for therapeutic and research applications is an active filing domain. Patent activity around chemically modified guide RNAs, high-purity GMP synthesis processes, and CRISPR delivery formulations has grown alongside clinical demand. The invalidation of Agilent's claims opens claim space that competitors or new entrants may be actively filing into — a signal worth tracking for any company building an sgRNA product pipeline.
sgRNA synthesis filing trendsSynthego's IP position in the CRISPR RNA editing market post-litigation
Synthego's CRISPRevolution and ECLIPSE product lines are now free of the '001 and '034 patent constraints. Analyzing Synthego's own patent filings — particularly around sgRNA design, synthesis chemistry, and genome editing service workflows — can indicate where the company is building proprietary IP moats following its successful defense. This is relevant intelligence for competitors and potential partners in the CRISPR tools market.
Synthego IP filing activityWhite-space opportunities near the cancelled CRISPR RNA claim scope
With all claims of both Agilent patents cancelled, the technical territory they previously occupied — synthetic sgRNA compositions and CRISPR RNA manufacturing methods — is now open. Companies that deferred R&D or filing activity in these areas due to Agilent's patent position may find adjacent claim space available. A landscape search around the cancelled claims' specification disclosures can map unfiled or underclaimed technical ground.
Post-IPR claim space analysisSimilar CRISPR & synthetic RNA patent disputes in N.D. California
Explore related patent disputes involving CRISPR guide RNA synthesis, genome editing IP, and PTAB-driven invalidity outcomes in the Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the CRISPR RNA IP landscape
A landmark four-stage invalidation sequence — PTAB, Federal Circuit, Supreme Court, district court — reshapes the synthetic guide RNA patent battleground.
IPR petitions proved decisive: all 63 claims cancelled across both patents
Synthego's decision to file IPR petitions (IPR2022-00402 and -00403) rather than litigate infringement at the district level proved strategically superior. Both patents were cancelled in their entirety. Companies facing CRISPR synthesis patent assertions should evaluate IPR as a primary — not fallback — strategy, particularly where prior art in the RNA chemistry and oligonucleotide synthesis field is dense.
Mootness dismissal leaves infringement question legally unresolved
Because the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than ruling on infringement, there is no binding district court finding on whether Synthego's products infringed. This matters if related patents with overlapping claim language remain in Agilent's portfolio: a mootness dismissal does not create issue preclusion on infringement the way a merits judgment would.
Synthego v Agilent — key questions answered
Both patents were found unpatentable in their entirety by PTAB in IPR2022-00402 and IPR2022-00403. The Federal Circuit affirmed those Final Written Decisions in 2025 (139 F.4th 1319), and the Supreme Court denied Agilent's petition for certiorari on March 30, 2026. The district court case was then dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as moot.
After PTAB cancelled all claims of both patents and the Federal Circuit affirmed that outcome, there were no live patent claims left to enforce or defend. With the underlying patents entirely invalid, the district court dispute became moot, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction over both the declaratory judgment claims and Agilent's infringement counterclaims.
Agilent's counterclaims targeted Synthego's CRISPRevolution line of synthetic sgRNA kits, its Advanced RNA and CRISPR GMP sgRNA Manufacturing services, and its ECLIPSE genome editing services. All were alleged to infringe claims of US10337001B2 and US10900034B2.
The Federal Circuit ruled on patent validity — specifically, it affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decisions finding all claims of both the '001 and '034 patents unpatentable in IPR2022-00402 and IPR2022-00403 (139 F.4th 1319, Fed. Cir. 2025). The Federal Circuit did not rule on infringement; that question was rendered moot by the invalidity findings.
The total invalidation of US10337001B2 and US10900034B2 removes these two patents as enforcement barriers in the synthetic guide RNA manufacturing space. Companies producing sgRNA products or performing genome editing services no longer face risk from these specific patents. However, Agilent's broader portfolio and third-party CRISPR RNA patents not at issue in this case may still require independent FTO analysis.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.